22 March 2008 10:06 PM

Our braying, Godless land where Easter is another day at the bookies

Year by year we throw away the beliefs that underpin our society. We have no idea how dangerous this path is, nor how steeply it descends into the darkness.

This is the first generation in centuries that could not see why it is wrong to allow betting shops to open on Good Friday.

And that is because this is the first generation in centuries that does not know that the soldiers cast lots at the foot of the Cross, ignoring the groans of the crucified Jesus and the weeping of his mother, to decide which of them should have Christ's seamless garment.

To anyone who understands what Good Friday means, the placing of bets on this day is a sort of obscenity. To everyone else it is a bit of fun or good business.

Well, do you think we won't pay for this? We are paying for it.

Look at the paintings of the Crucifixion by the great Flemish Masters such as Hieronymus Bosch and you will see, baying or sneering at Golgotha, exactly the same snarling, contorted, heedless faces you find on the drunken streets of our country.

These artists were trying to tell us that, if we reject the idea of absolute unchanging goodness, we will become like that mob, and part of it.

And we are doing so, visibly.

For the first and most important victim of Britain's braying, self-reliant Godlessness is lifelong marriage, that often hard and inconvenient arrangement that rests, in the end, on self-sacrifice, patience, constancy and restraint – virtues that a materialist credit-card society scorns and which die when religion dies.

Those that have ears to hear should listen to the sober truth spoken by a teacher, Phil Whalley, at the conference of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers.

He said that 40 to 50 per cent of youngsters born in Britain this year face a greater risk of failing at school because they will be born to unmarried couples or single parents.

Mr Whalley said: 'We all know from professional experience ...that no matter how brilliant the lesson, or how much has been spent on rebuilding the school, if children come in angry and in emotional turmoil because of their family life, they will not learn.

"The great sadness is that the consequences of an unstable family background are felt long into adult life.

"Those who underachieve in their education are more likely to go on and live dysfunctional lives and be unable to support a stable family life for their own children. In short, as a society we are in danger of creating an expanding, perpetuating and toxic circle."

This is actually what people such as me have been warning of for years, while being dismissed loftily as puritans and bigots and falsely described as believers in a past "golden age".

It is now coming true in the schools and – ever more rapidly – on the streets as well.

And still nobody proposes to do anything about it, because nobody in high politics, culture or the education industry is prepared to say that some things are right and some things are wrong – unconditionally and always.

It is easier, as it was that first Easter, to wash their hands of it.

Too rich to care, the party 'tart' who should know better

Many people are quite reasonably alarmed by the way of life embraced by the "family" of Shannon Matthews, and subsidised by you and me in a spasm of misplaced and counter-productive "compassion".

As well they might be.

This is modern Britain and it will soon be coming to a location near you, if it hasn't already.

But we shouldn't think the middle classes are blameless.

Look at the famous party in Bovey Tracey, Devon, which went wrong, ending with a virtual riot and the trashing and ransacking by ferals of the family's lovely house.

Sarah Ruscoe attends a girls-only grammar school in the supposedly staid South West and obviously has all the benefits of education and money.

Yet nobody seems to have thought it abnormal to hire bouncers for her 18th birthday celebration, or for her to dress as a kinky tart for the occasion.

Too rich to care, still infected by the drivel of Sixties ideas on sex, drugs and selfishness, the very people who ought to be setting standards are busily smashing them up. If you break the rules to suit yourself, you may get away with it because you are well-off.

But you will not like it when your attitudes are adopted by the poor inhabitants of housing estates, who reasonably decide that if it's all right for people who live in manor houses, it's all right for them, too.

The warmongers who go on lying

Please don't believe the Iraq War apologists when they claim it would have been all right if only it had been better planned.

This is an excuse invented after the event for a wrong, stupid and dishonest war which we should never have taken part in and which has played a large part in the economic tornado in which we now shiver.

I have checked my own writings from the months before the war, and it was quite obvious to me – with no special access to intelligence information – that our leaders were lying and had no idea what they were doing.

This applies to the leadership and the back benches of both the main political parties, with a very few honourable exceptions.

Only the Liberal Democrats, now the targetsof a sustained campaign of vilification by the Cameron-loving media pack, emerged with any honour.

In any other field of endeavour those responsible for such a terrible, bloody failure would long have been driven from public life.

Yet they are still here, claiming some right to govern us. Why?

Who has faith in this archbishop?

Now Anglican Canon Michael Ainsworth has been beaten up outside his church by youths snarling "You ****ing priest", will the Archbishop of Canterbury tear himself away from his Koran and issue a ringing denunciation of Christianophobia? No, thought not.

The simpering chorus of Barack Obama admirers praise the strange speech he gave, defending his links with the Left-wing pastor Jeremiah Wright. The US media have finally spotted that Wright, a serious weirdo, is a liability. Mr Obama refused to disown Wright, saying: "I can no more disown him than I can disown my white grandmother." Hang on. Of course he can't disown his granny. You can't choose your granny – and as it happens she did much of the hard work of bringing him up. But he chose Jeremiah Wright and his church. He could disown him if he wanted to. He just doesn't want to. When will people see through this fake?

Will anything be done about the wretched postal ballot system, which is an invitation to fraud. What do you think? After the conviction of a Useless Tory councillor for voting fraud, Judge Richard Mawrey QC said vote-rigging was "childishly simple to commit and very difficult to detect". Back in 2005 the same excellent judge said some ballots in this country would disgrace a banana republic (which of course we now are). So why is it that the major political parties don't immediately tighten the law?

Share this article:

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Lib Dems pretty useless, Torys less useless but more evil. Labour definitely the enemy. We must at least vote for who we want rather than vote tactically. I did a stupid thing on my last vote. I traded my vote for Lib Dems with someone who wanted to vote Labour. The idea was that we both wanted to vote for the 2nd strongest party to keep the Torys out. Bloody stupid idea, even if he did vote for me properly.

If there actually was a party we wanted and we did all have the courage to vote for them then we would be much better off.

Yes there is voting fraud. It's well documented and under the current government it will be a strong factor, but it can be defeated.

Perhaps you could found a newspaper or talk radio show or television news service that truly addresses Christian and conservative issues. You would have a massive followership, and finances would be easily raised by ordinary members of the public - we're so fed up with our pathetic and morally weak 'rulers'. I've just returned from Arizona and it was brilliant to actually live in a civilized Christian country for a few weeks. Over there, they have small radio stations and TV stations that cater to tailored audiences. Just a thought but I think it'd be a success if you try launching a Christian conservative media service.

(Matthew 5:17-18) . . .“Do not think I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I came, not to destroy, but to fulfill; 18 for truly I say to YOU that sooner would heaven and earth pass away than for one smallest letter or one particle of a letter to pass away from the Law by any means and not all things take place.

Son of God assured his listeners that he had not come “to destroy” the Law. He neither disobeyed its commandments nor declared any part of it as not binding upon the Israelites. Instead, Jesus came “to fulfill” that divine legislation. As a sinless person, he kept it perfectly, even “as far as death, yes, death on a torture stake.” (Phil. 2:8; Heb. 4:15; 1 Pet. 2:22) His sacrificial death also fulfilled prophetic types furnished by the Law’s system of animal sacrifices.—Dan. 9:26, 27; Heb. 10:1-9.

Jesus fulfilled, not only the letter of the Law, but also the spirit behind that Law. Whereas the Law forbade sinful acts, Jesus denounced the attitudes that motivate such acts. For example, murder and adultery were violations of God’s law; but Jesus showed that continuing angry with someone and looking upon a woman with lust are the dispositions of mind that lead to such transgressions. (Matt. 5:21, 22, 27, 28; Jas. 1:13-15) Furthermore, Jesus’ voluntary sacrifice of his human life for the benefit of mankind was a superlative display of love, which the Bible calls “the law’s fulfillment.”—Rom. 13:8-10; compare John 15:13.

Next in his sermon, Jesus stated: “Truly I say to you that sooner would heaven and earth pass away than for one smallest letter or one particle of a letter to pass away from the Law by any means and not all things take place.”—Matt. 5:18.

As shown in The Kingdom Interlinear Translation, Jesus here used the word “Amen,” meaning “truly,” “so be it.” As the anointed Son of God, the promised Messiah, he could certainly assure the truthfulness of his utterances.—Compare 2 Corinthians 1:20; Revelation 3:14.

The fulfillment of God’s law would reach down to the “smallest letter or one particle of a letter.” In the Hebrew alphabet then current, the smallest letter was yod .)י(Certain Hebrew letters featured a tiny stroke, apex or “tittle.” The scribes and Pharisees viewed as highly significant, not only the words and letters of God’s law, but also those strokes or ‘smallest particles.’ A rabbinical legend represents God as saying: “Solomon and a thousand like him shall pass away, but not a tittle of thee (the Torah [Pentateuch]) will I allow to be expunged.”

So remote was the possibility of any failure of fulfillment for even the tiniest detail of God’s law that “sooner would heaven and earth pass away.” This was equivalent to saying “never,” for the Scriptures indicate that the literal heavens and earth will remain for eternity.—Ps. 78:69; 119:90... - *** w78 4/1 pp. 30-31 The Sermon on the Mount—“I Came, Not to Destroy, But to Fulfill” ***

(Psalm 78:69) . . .And he began to build his sanctuary just like the heights, Like the earth that he has founded to time indefinite.

(Psalm 119:90) . . .Your faithfulness is for generation after generation. You have solidly fixed the earth, that it may keep standing.

---------------

*** Bible Citations ***

(2 Timothy 3:16) All Scripture is inspired* of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness...

(Acts 28:25-27) . . .So, because they were at disagreement with one another, they began to depart, while Paul made this one comment: “The holy spirit aptly spoke through Isaiah the prophet to YOUR forefathers, 26 saying, ‘Go to this people and say: “By hearing, YOU will hear but by no means understand; and, looking, YOU will look but by no means see. 27 For the heart of this people has grown unreceptive, and with their ears they have heard without response, and they have shut their eyes; that they should never see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and turn back, and I should heal them.”. . .

(Acts 1:16) . . .Men, brothers, it was necessary for the scripture to be fulfilled, which the holy spirit spoke beforehand by David’s mouth about Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus...

----------

(Exodus 22:16-17) . . .“Now in case a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged, and he actually lies down with her, he is to obtain her without fail as his wife for the purchase price. 17 If her father flatly refuses to give her to him, he is to pay over the money at the rate of purchase money for virgins.

(Deuteronomy 22:28-29) . . .“In case a man finds a girl, a virgin who has not been engaged, and he actually seizes her and lies down with her, and they have been found out, 29 the man who lay down with her must also give the girl’s father fifty silver shekels, and she will become his wife due to the fact that he humiliated her. He will not be allowed to divorce her all his days.

An unengaged virgin who was seduced by an unmarried man was protected, for if the father permitted, the seducer had to marry the girl and could never divorce her all his life.

What we read at Exodus 22:16, 17 and Deuteronomy 22:28, 29 shows that the option of divorce disappeared after premarital fornication. This, then, might cause a man (or a virgin woman) to resist a temptation to share in fornication. A man could not feel, ‘She is pretty and exciting, so I’ll have a good time with her even though she is not the sort I’d like to marry.’ Rather, this law would deter immorality by causing any would-be offender to weigh the long-term consequences of fornication—having to stay with the other party throughout his life.

The Law also lessened the problem of illegitimacy. God decreed: “No illegitimate son may come into the congregation of Jehovah.” (Deuteronomy 23:2) So if a man who seduced a virgin had to marry her, their fornication would not result in an illegitimate offspring among the Israelites. - it-2 p.342

Hello Peter.
really enjoying this blog and especially Jaq with his POV's which I think have finally blown away Mr Armstrong who continually misquotes the Bible as in Kingdom Hall Doctrine.Mr Armstrong should study the scriptures a bit more before unloading.(for example the"IS"in his 2Timothy misquote does not exist in the original and should read..All scripture inspired of God etc which throws a whole new light on the statement.Also Jesus said"Until heaven and earth pass not one jot or tittle shall be removed from the law of Moses" well Heaven and Earth are still here so over to you Mr Armstrong.
I think its the Pharisee Armstrong who picks and choses(or maybe thats all he's been shown shown at Kingdom Hall or the Latter Day Saints)what he wants to promulgate,and would love to hear his POV of Jaq's 8 Bible sanctioned marriages.
I fully support you Peter in your POV and shall be there on the day (inshaAllah)you finally make a stand.
Who was it who said that one learned believer is worth more than a thousand ignorant worshippers.
yours Dermot Doyle.

'It is, of course, a marvellous, culturally rich pagan festival and one upon which the whole Christmas myth was based.'

And Mr Boatang's post (of above date, and time):

'Mr Hitchens, do you have any idea what Easter is actually about? Because I can assure you it has nothing to do with a chap called Jesus and everything to do with the very ancient celebration of Spring and rebirth. Hence the eggs, the bunny, the name, the date.'

(Erm... are you two joined at the hip, the hippocampus, or both?)

Anyway... in reply to John Demetriou's post of December, I posted the following extracts – taken from Article 34 of the (39) 'Articles of Religion' of the Church of England – and in the light of Mr Boatang wishing to tread the self-same, argumentative territory, here seems an appropriate place to let the words of Article 34, 'spring' back into life again:

'XXXIV. Of the Traditions of the Church.'

'It is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one, and utterly like: for at all times they have been divers [arch. various, several.], and may be changed according to the diversities of countries, times, and men's manners...

'Every particular or national Church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish, ceremonies or rites of the Church ordained only by man's authority, so that all things be done to edifying.'

Thanks for addressing my points, Peter. Sorry, if I went OTT at the end by accusing you of being too much in love with your own opinions but that's what cheap wine will do.

I think that it is an almost impossible question to answer - would we have the same basic set of social morals and sense of right and wrong in the absence of religion/faith? We can never know for certain because even atheists have been brought up in a society which was shaped by one religion in particular.

But most religions and faiths have the same basic set of principles governing behaviour. It's wrong to kill, wrong to steal, wrong to lie, etc. Unless every one of those faiths was inspired by God (and, if that is so, how can we say that Christianity is preferable to X religion?) then it would seem that it is in man's nature and self-interest to oppose killing, theft, etc and that is why he writes it into the faiths which he creates.

You seem to argue that a Christian's abjuration of killing and theft is stronger and more robust than an atheist's because it is based on faith whereas the atheist's is based only on a calculation of what is necessary to create a just and stable society. Yet both are flexible.

An atheist may decide to kill in a just war or to steal if he is starving because he believes that the situation overrides the normal mores of a stable society. Similarly, we see that a Christian's belief in Christ's teaching to love one's neighbour can be just as flexible as many prefer the Old Testament attitude to that of the New when it comes to the objects of his own prejudices (gays, unmarried people, etc).

It seems to me that Christians, far from adhering to set of faiths set down by their God/Christ, actually pick and choose such teachings according to their taste. Instead of allowing their prejudices to be shaped by their interpretation of the Bible, they allow their interpretation of the Bible to be shaped by their prejudices.

God tells me not to eat pork but I like pork so I decide that God wasn't being serious when he said that. God tells me to rest on a Sunday but I want to read Peter H's latest offerings in the MoS so I decide that God was being flexible on that one. God tells me that homosexuality is a sin. Am I gay? No. Are any of my family gay? No. Are any of my friends gay? No. Are any of my neighbours gay? Well, there's that old man who lives alone round the corner but no-one speaks to him so I think that God was being serious about the homosexuality thing.

So, please forgive me if I fail to be impressed by the moral superiority of a Christian's sense of right and wrong over that of an atheist, Peter. The truth as I see it is that a Christian draws comfort from his faith (which is wonderful) but picks and chooses his sense of right and wrong from God's teachings on exactly the same basis as an atheist does - personal expediency and society's self-interest.

Do these failings and contradictions make the Christian a bad person? No. They just make him human.

Here we start again with the Atheists = immoral, dysfunctional, authortarian canards.

One interesting arguement from Mr Hitchens against Atheism: Why is there something rather than nothing? Mr Hitchens believes this to be the strongest challenge to Atheism. Why?

The question he asks is a matter of science and it is a profoundly complicated one. Like many matters of science in the past which have been solved, which are presently being looked and and those which are going to pop up in the future, there is a length of time in which we simply do not know. In the further past it was very tempting to fill the hole in our scientific knowledge with some theistic idea, which in turn did absolutely nothing to contribute to it's understanding and instead hindered it.

Glad to see there are still some people around living in this mode of thinking where if we don't know something, there must be something magical and divine involved.

The matter of morality, which seems to be the area Mr Hitchens is more comfortable with: on Faith VS Atheism he cynically favours the 'Pro VS Con' angle more than the 'True or False' one which is the really important mattter. Is it worth pointing out that quite a number of Christ's teachings seem quite similiar to Buddhist ones at the time he lived and yet no one considers Christ to be a man of Judiac faith but Buddhist morality?

Another issue has been touched on in this thread but needs more discussion: there are deeds within the Bible which are hideous, many of them done by the creator himself but others done by people, with his Everythingness' sanction. To be a good person based on biblical teachings, you really do have to be very selective with which teaching you follow.

Wouldn't the mere fact that we are able to make such decisions demonstrate we are capable of being moral without imaginary uber-adults making sure we behaved?

Although I am an avid reader of your MoS column and of this blog, and agree with most of your arguments, I feel you do yourself a disservice with your religion/atheism argument.

You say that “The strongest arguments against atheism are first "Why is there something, rather than nothing?" to which they have no answer at all, and prefer to ignore”, and second “atheism provides no basis for absolute morality of the kind that leads to self-sacrifice.”

Your strong implication in the first argument is that you believe that something can only exist because God made it. As an atheist, I agree with you that I have no answer to this question. I wasn’t around when the universe was created, so I don’t know why there is something rather than nothing. But neither do you. You choose to believe that everything we know was created by a supreme deity, but, using your own logic, who created that deity? Is there another, even greater deity, and another like some never ending set of Russian dolls? When you ask a Christian “who created God?”, invariably the answer is - no one did, God just Is. Of course you cannot counter this with argument no matter how adept you are, as you cannot argue with blind faith.

I actually have a great fondness for Christianity. Some of the greatest music ever composed was as a result of religious inspiration, as were many great poems and works of art. I also derive enjoyment from studying Greek mythology and from reading the works of the Brothers Grimm, J R R Tolkein and Oscar Wilde. This doesn’t mean that I believe them to be based on true events, or that I therefore cannot gain insights or inspiration from them.

I am not one of those atheists who hate religion or regard it as a “poison” as another contributor has stated. In fact, as a method of trying to teach children right from wrong, I can confirm from first hand experience that it is indeed a very effective behaviour modifier (missing Sunday Mass is a mortal sin so you will go to Hell, or, at best, Purgatory). However, so is the threat that Father Christmas won’t bring any goodies if you are naughty during December. It doesn’t make it true. Neither does the fact that millions of adults profess to believe in a God make his existence a fact.

I see no hypocrisy in an atheist including some parts of the bible in his moral code (e.g. do unto others as you would have done unto thyself). After all, the perceived Christian value system tends to pick and choose which biblical tenets it prefers to embrace and those it would prefer to ignore. The fact that I believe this life is all we have would no more make me indulge in an unbridled orgy of hedonism than it would cause me to smear myself with honey and roll around on an anthill. I have heard this “morality” argument from Christians many times, as if the absence of some sort of divine judgement would cause otherwise sane and responsible people to turn into unbridled savages.

There are consequences to all actions here on earth for all those people who do not believe that there will be a final judgement (and indeed for all those who do). If you steal someone’s wallet, he may come and steal your car in return. If you pick a fight with your neighbour, you may find too late, and to your cost, that he had had a successful spell as an amateur boxer. If you drink or eat to excess, or smoke, you will probably find that your later years are made a misery by ill health. You may, however, be the kind of fellow to whom money or material possessions are unimportant, and you get personal satisfaction through helping other people, not because you think you will be rewarded in an afterlife, but because that is just something that makes you feel good. You don’t need to believe you will somehow be rewarded after death by being altruistic during life to lead this sort of existence - I know plenty of people who come into this category.

Dear Peter I am in agreement as usual. Re Good Friday I was shocked to find my daughter contemplating eating meat on Good Friday. We are not catholic but I have always followed the "no flesh" rule o that one day. The point is not the eating or not eating of meat but that on one day we remember, by sacrifice,that a man died in agony for his beliefs. In my mind it's a case of tradition, and it seems to me that all traditions are being slowly eroded in the name of progress and anyone who tries to maintain tradition is looked upon as out of date, and old fashioned.

Surely the more we lose our traditional behaviour the more we lose our identity

Guy Reid-Brown - I would agree with you completely (except for socialising with the street males of the new welfare dependant Britain) and thankyou for writing that, but still there are some caveats:

From a social POV yes, but still, marriage as it was required change - wives were abused. Respect and good treatment was a womans good luck but domestic abuse was only outlawed fairly recently. Basically the paternalism of Christian culture needed tweaking. That is why ‘soppy liberals’ were able to bring about change - people wanted it. Maybe it was like wanting a drink and getting a tidal wave, I don’t know.

From a religious POV it should not be imagined that the Bible presents a view of marriage which would be acceptable to modern minds. There are at least 8 different types of marriage sanctioned in the Bible (refs on request), 6 of which directly include rape (in practice all 8 probably would) and 6 of which directly subjugate women (again, in practice all 8 would). In fact, if a man was lacking a wife he simply had to find himself an unmarried virgin, rape her, pay 50 shekels, and she was obliged to marry him. In this context it is worth questioning how morally authoritative Christianity is?!

Considering the social perspective I think housing is a key issue.

Also I think this question of being a 'proper' believer should be considered - it's timely I think. So what if you don’t believe the miracles? Is it wrong to question ones faith? Should you be publicly abused if you do? What value does religion have to those who can’t, in all honesty, tick all the boxes? It has become common to discard various myths whose factual accuracy has been discredited, however I think there is probably a lot to be learned from them, and thus a lot to be lost from discarding them. Myths reveal a lot in three major areas: psychology, history, and sociology. Myths play out how people interact. Parable teaching is a powerful method of instruction, describing values and a worldview with vivid archetypal imagery. Through almost all forms of recognised art today, utilising in particular poetry, song and prose, our culture is taught in the Christian church.

I feel I should say no more as it’s PH’s blog but I wonder that if the alternative is anarchy, and it’s looking that way, then did PH say that any religion would be better, eg. Islam?

What a great article! It gave me hope that someone from 'normal' society 'sees' what is happening around us!. Anything that is good in society has been built around the foundational aspects of CHRISTIANITY. I know there have been people who have affected negatively the way people see 'CHRISTIANITY!' and that is sad, but that is imperfect people in an imperfect world. However, based on proper interpretation of the Bible, there is still the same hope, REPENT means turning around and going in an opposite direction, being personaaly accountable and sorry for what we have done wrong and where we have failed instead of blaming others, haveing a healthy fear of God,and getting back to Christian values, if you dont understand or know what they are, do what I did, ask questions, look for the truth, it is out there, it changed my heart, and then my life.
Also I must add, why do the supposedly intelligent mock CREATION and Genesis, do you think the THEORY of Evolution is believable OR FACT, no way, it is a theory TAUGHT as fact, if you can believe that there was a random explosion in a junk yard and 'Concorde' was made! (ie the awesomeness of design you see around us, the wonder of life) what do you see evolving now? apart from what a human being interferes with or creates? and you think that the Christian belief in a mighty God who created the Sun the Moon and the Stars and us, is unbeliveable!!!THINK AGAIN, without God and true justice, Jesus sacrifice on the Cross to put us right with God and Judgement for evil, there is no hope and no sense and no justice in this life.
If we are a random accident, so is our life and our very existence, a lot of hope there is in that. lets all get depressed
So with God still being a reality, Jesus dying on the Cross and defeating death and sickness and raising to life again, we still have hope and something to look forward to and celebrate!
SuzeeBee

'Didn't Christopher say that religion was all about the subjugation of women? Single mothers eh? Dreadful. Burn 'em all as witches, that'll save the world. Thing is, a woman can't get pregnant alone, even godless whores.'

The early Roman writers used to mock Christianity as 'the womens' religion' because of the status it gave women in comparison to pagan Roman culture, and the predominance of women in Christian congregations.

Marriage was always a protection for women, a protection for their children and simultaneously a way of controlling the polygamous urge in men. St. Paul says that in so many words.

I would encourage Jaq to start socialising with the street males of the new welfare dependant Britain, who could properly be described as atheist or agnostic if they knew what the words meant - their cheerfully contemptuous view of the female, their touching propensity to have different children by different females and not be around to take the responsibility because the State is paying - all this Christianity was guarding and protecting against. Women en masse were protected by Christianity - the ones who have the ability to formulate philosophies of atheism are not the ones who suffer most from the new way. The Home Office figures show that the unmarried female is in the greatest danger of domestic abuse, as are the children of the unwed.

There is actually no excuse for the brutishness of British life on the street level - it is the end result of a long process of an ideological process that always, as ever, is percolated from the educated, the monied classes.

(2 Timothy 3:16-17) . . .All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.

The Old Testament Prophets were under the Mosaic law which was fulfilled by Christ.

Peter Hitchens has talked about atheism recently and I realise he does believe in God to a degree.

Where does Peter draw his beliefs and morals etc? Is it from the Bible? If he is happy to except some, he should except it all and not be a selective Christian.

Either you accept the Bible as the word of God or you do not, you cannot pick and choose. That is why when Peter and others who say they are Christian reject some part of the scriptures, this demonstrates that they truly are not.

(1 Thessalonians 2:13) . . .Indeed, that is why we also thank God incessantly, because when YOU received God’s word, which YOU heard from us, YOU accepted it, not as the word of men, but, just as it truthfully is, as the word of God, which is also at work in YOU believers.

Mr Boatang. That was a rather pathetic posting, and far below the standard your earlier efforts. I, and others, tend to think that the encroaching Brussels bureaucracy is the cancer on our civilisation. Ever Greater Union is certainly not popular amongst the general public if the polls can be seen as a guide, and you and your alter ego seem to put great faith in such things. Yet we are compelled to accept ever more of this, pointing towards the dissolution of anything truly unique about the polity of this island. Britain exists under common law, not the Napoleonic Code. How long before "compromise" has to be made in this area to bring the legal system "in sync" with that of the Continent? There seems to be a "belief" in this whole European Project that makes it similar to those various other "secular religions" that Lucas McCarty was alluding to in another thread. Yet you're quite happy for Britain to continue to be drawn ever further into this mire of red tape and excess regulation which further stifles business on the basis of its trade access and some supposed opportunity for "reform". Well the "vast majority" in this country don't agree with you on this imposition, so why not give up the argument?

PH's statement is that of a conservative lamenting the deterioration of old restraints upon our behaviour. These moral restraints are very important for a free society, as if the majority of people don't exercise self-restraint, then the state will inevitably legislate to do so, meaning that some behaviour currently legal but "frowned upon" may have to be criminalised! As an example: in a country where it is regarded as a social humiliation to be drunk in public, widespread public drunkenness may be legal but is restricted by the social taboo and the fear of being humiliated, of having to face ones family and friends, etc (the same reason why people won't normally walk naked in Trafalgar Square in the middle of the day even if it were legal). If it is socially acceptable, then it will happen all the time, and eventually the State will pass laws restricting this, and have to enforce them as well. So from being able to do something, but being at least partially ostracised for it, one cannot do it at all without being arrested and fined/gaoled. Which is freer? Shops etc being closed on Good Friday is/was a tradition in Britain, and you have said in the past that you value Britain's traditions, and don't want to see them die. I don't see that betting shops are fundamentally worse than having the pub open, but I can see why PH may regard this as a more "serious breach of the old tradition".

To Mr Armstrong.

Firstly, I don't know Peter Hitchens, and don't really know his full set of beliefs. Do you?

Secondly, the bible is supposed to have been written by prophets and others who were "inspired by" God, not dictated in a seminar. It is the Koran which makes that claim. No one has made the claim, as I understand it, that it was etched in stone by divine lighting the way the 10 Commandments were in that old Charleton Heston film. The Old Testament prophets didn't have quite the personal morality that Jesus Christ preached. Does this make God a liar in that the Old Testiment is different in this respect? The contradictions in the bible often seem to eminate from people trying to make a too fine a point, and this is often an attempt to make it fit some personal wish. I'm not saying you're wrong, but you should at least be a little reticent.

Thirdly, PH isn't some aspiring American Presidential candidate who finds it expedient to espouse some faux Christianity (Barack Obama?). He would actually have an easier time of it if he never mentioned God, Jesus, or any such thing.

Perhaps he isn't a true believer as you would see it, but whatever he actually thinks and believes, it isn't just out of political expediency.

I think the point about atheists I guess, based on those I know, is that they do things that are generally accepted as good things because they want to, not because they have to in fear of reprisal later from a supernatural being watching our every move. Many, including Christopher I think, reject the notion of life as some huge test, as revolting - the idea that our every action is watched and noted on some balance sheet, to be judged later. I have sympathy with this feeling, that people do good things because they want to, because it feels good. That you, as a Christian, Peter, do not understand why anyone should want to do good things when they don't have to, is academic. They do do good things when they don't have to and that's that. I've watched them do so. (admit poss Hawthorne effect in my case but truth still holds)

People in isolated cultures, aboriginals, have evolved perfectly decent and moral living practices without God or Jesus. Also, those who do believe in a deity have evolved cultures where human sacrifice is common. Yuk. The power of authority backed by a deity is a mighty thing - 'do this because it makes sense' holds little weight or fear against 'do this or a magical being will make you rot in hell for eternity when you die'.

So, if a deity is calling the shots, better make it a kind and loving one rather than a jealous God who wants every unbeliever to die a horrible death.

You talk a lot about absolute morality but you cherry-pick religious belief. The texts you hold dear were not written by God but were a rehash by a gaggle of English blokes in the 17th century. One of them was the author of some of the most beautiful poetry that's ever been written in our language, so forgive me if I've wondered whether you worship God or language?

So, do you do the good things you do because you believe in God or because you are simply you and it is your choice to do those things? I think our behaviour is inspired by our own nature and by ideas, and the ideas you have been exposed to are Christian ideas. Our behaviour is restrained by many things. And selfishness can take many forms, not all bad. Perhaps someone selfishly causes you to smile, simply because they like your smile, or arranges the flowers in church because they are lonely and like doing it?

Someone earlier accused you of basically not being a proper Christian. I resent the 'holier-than-thou' attitude. Judge not.. It is that attitude that I'm sure causes some to question their faith. The idea that someone else just isn't good enough.

The one thing I liked about Jesus Christ is that he wasn't so arrogant or prejudiced, he wouldn't have required an unmarried mother, for example, to be doused in dettol and still carefully avoided her. Didn't Christopher say that religion was all about the subjugation of women? Single mothers eh? Dreadful. Burn 'em all as witches, that'll save the world. Thing is, a woman can't get pregnant alone, even godless whores.

Welcome back, Boatang.
I would say the only "break" we've had is from you throwing around flippant, groundless remarks such as "After having a break from the hate, I see nothing has changed."

What hatred, exactly? If you come in here determined to paint this weblog as some kind of KKK forum, you will get nowhere. I think most of the "hate" around here emanates from you, directed at anyone who has ever even eaten fish & chips from the Daily Mail.

You also say "Organised religion is a cancer on civilisation and long may it continue to slowly die."

By "organised religion", I assume you mean simply "Christianity as observed in Great Britain." Or do you really believe Islam is slowly dying?

"Paul" (24th March, 3.26 pm) says :"You weaken you own argument, Peter, when you bring God into it. There are plenty of atheists in this country whose lives are characterised by self-sacrifice, patience, constancy and restraint."
I am sure this is so. But on what basis do these atheists believe that such qualities are better than their opposites? We live in the afterglow of Christianity, in which such things are still generally viewed as good. But, in the absence of a generally acknowledged source of absolute goodness, and of absolute right and wrong, why shouldn't a strong, rich safe person laugh at self-sacrifice, patience, constancy and restraint? Which is exactly what is happening in the poor and lawless parts of our country, where murder now goes unpunished.

These 'atheists' are theoretical in their godlessness, because they live in a Christianised society where their beliefs are not tested in practice. Most atheists are comfortably-off middle class types, living in pleasant areas and working among people who generally accept Christian morality even if they reject its basis. But step outside that safety zone, and ruthless self-aggrandisment rapidly becomes the only practical guide to action if your approach is purely rational. The Golden Rule becomes inoperable, and the fabled 'human solidarity' rapidly breaks down. Atheism has never come up with a substitute for God, as the foundation of absolute rules of right and wrong which apply to you at all times and in all places, whether it suits you or not.

"Are their lives worth less than your own because they don't have faith in a God?". No, of course not. Who said they were, or implied that they were? What words have I used that could possibly bear this bizarre interpretation? Christians believe what Christ himself said, that God values everyone infinitely and equally.

"And, from reading your own writings, you've a bit of a cheek accusing others of failing to display patience and restraint." I make no claim to perfection, but where have I failed to show these things? I do not advocate lawless bloodshed, I argue my case, I am rude only to those who are in a position to answer back, and who richly deserve it.

" Does the value of the sacrifice of those who died in World Wars vary depending on whether they were believers or atheists? If not, then bringing God into the argument is entirely specious."

Once again, I am not sure what I have said that could be taken to suggest anything of the kind. Can "Paul" produce any words written or spoken by me which might be thought to mean this?

The strongest arguments against atheism are first "Why is there something, rather than nothing?" to which they have no answer at all, and prefer to ignore.

The second is the one stated above, that atheism provides no basis for absolute morality of the kind that leads to self-sacrifice. The sacrifices of those who died in those wars were undoubtedly ( and specifically commemorated as though they were) based on Christian precepts, particularly "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends" - words to be found on hundreds of war memorials.

Isn't faith proved by actions, rather than by words? If a professed atheist follows Christian precepts in his actions, then in what way is he acting as an atheist? A man certain that there is no God, no life beyond the grave, no universal, eternal justice may behave exactly as it suits him to behave, and must value his life above all things, since it is all he has and when it is over he has nothing. If he does not do so, when the moment comes, that seems to suggest to me that either he doesn't understand his supposed atheism, or that he isn't really an atheist. And thank God for that. But no atheist is ever able to understand this argument. Their minds are bizarrely closed to its existence, and I have yet to meet one who will offer a reply to it. They change the subject.

Such frank atheists, who fully understand their own position rather than adopting it as a jaunty pose, do exist. But they are rare. W.Somerset Maugham was one. His , autobiographical character Philip 'Of Human Bondage' recognises in a vital moment that his newly-discovered atheism means that he can now do anything he likes.

"As for the betting on Good Friday, how shallow are your own principles if you believe that it's less reprehensible to bet on other days?"

Again, I don't understand this point. My objection to betting on Good Friday is specific, because of the obscenity of its heedlessness, and the specific echo of the soldiers casting lots. I don't bet very often or very much, on rare visits to race-courses, and my view of bookmakers' shops is that they are places where you go to hand over your money to strangers in return for worthless slips of paper. And I disapprove of the National Lottery because it is a cynical tax on the poor and ill-educated. But that wasn't the point I was addressing when I objected to the secularisation and vulgarisation of Good Friday, the holiest and most solemn day in the Christian calendar.

Finally, "Paul" says :"The only love I ever discern from your writings, Peter, is a love of your own opinion and very little love of your neighbour. A predisposition to anger instead of any attempt at understanding." Hwe goes on a bit about the Love of Christ here, too, seeimng to think that it was a sort of kindergarten or social worker form of soppiness. Christ was notably fierce, and often angry (overturning the tables of the moneychangers sprinsg to mind), in much that he did and said, and His love was not expressed in Toynbeeish tones. I make this point, not to make any claims for myself, but to emphasise that the word 'love' has become a little devalued in modern discourse.

Anyone can criticise my personal failings as much as they like. I am sure I am perfectly horrible even when I am trying quite hard to be pleasant. But who cares? The important thing is whether I am right.

The briefest study of Christianity will tell you that Christians do not claim to be better than other people, and are not encouraged to make such claims. The whole religion is based on the belief that we are fallen creatures. But I do object to the claim that I do not attempt to understand what I write about. On the contrary, I think I make great efforts to study and understand the nature of this society, and the evidence for this is set out in two substantial books and in many longer articles, which are the research basis for my column and weblog.

"Epona" (24th March 12.25 am) cliams that my scorn for the British National Party is imposed on me by some sort of 'NUJ rules'. In case anyone believes this tripe, can I stress that I take a great deal of personal pleasure in attacking the BNP, and do so entirely on my own initiative. The National Union of Journalists has no power to instruct its members (of which I am one) in their political views, and if it attempted to tell me what to think, I would of course leave it forthwith. I belong to it largely as a result of my experiences in Poland in 1980, when independent trade unionism - in the form of Solidarity - stood up against tyranny. I could not in all conscience endorse and support that, without taking the same view in my own country. Trade Unions are an important part of a plural, free society.

The Civil Rights Movement in the US at first demanded two things: the demolition of the segregation laws in the South, and then the affirmation of a right for African-Americans to vote (at the time, the individual states had the right to determine their own laws as to who could and could not vote - although they were never framed in so crude terms as "no black voters", all kinds of ruses were invoked that were designed to effectively disfranchise black voters - look up the "Grandfather Clause" on a decent search engine and go from there to see what I'm referring to - this, incidentally, disfranchised thousands of white people as well - it was basically a means by which the old landowning groups could consolidate their social power - the families that were powerful in the South during slavery thus continued to be the powerful elites for the next 100 years due to their ability to prevent up to 80% of the electorate from being able to vote).

Toward the end of his life, Martin Luther King was echoing the economic justice discourses that Malcolm X had articulated earlier. The introduction of "positive discrimination" (cited by Guy Reid-Brown), which is itself actually considerably less extensive today than it was in the 1980s, was a very poor substitute, and a kind of political tokenism vis-a-vis the kind of radical restructuring of US society that King actually envisaged around the time he was murdered. I doubt MLK would have had much truck with the whole Political Correctness thing, which is really just about modifying speech, rather than economic power.

The point remains about political movements, and aspiring toward major social change (whether left or right) requiring actual political action and mobilisation, rather than simply writing to the letters page of the Daily Mail or what have you, which serves to reinforce what actually exists by serving as a mere vent for social frustrations. Moaning achieves precisely nothing. Waiting for the Tory Party to die achieves nothing.

Andrew Platt,You are right to say gambling can be destructive but so can most things if they become obsessive.
I do not believe shops should be open,any shops,on good Friday if you want to follow Christian observances.If you are not a Christian I cannot see why you would want to ban gambling on good Friday and nothing else unless of course you have a bias against organised gambling .Good Friday was for families,the same as Sundays and anything like football and gender pursuits could be classed as destructive.

A riposte to the curious comment from "Roberto" (23rd March 5.55 pm) . "Roberto" seems to think that my opposition to the Iraq war is in some way 'left-wing'. I really do not know how to respond to this, given all that I have written on how and why this is a left-wing war, and on how war is the greatest ally that socialism has had in the past century.

He says that supporters of the Iraq war, especially the then editors of the various newspapers which swallowed whole the pro-war propaganda of our deeply dishonest government and reproduced it in ways designed to influence public opinion towards war, were not warmongers. Why not? I should have thought there were few more clear-cut cases of individuals and organisations deliberately fomenting aggressive war, and creating the conditions for it. He may dislike the term, but what else does it mean? Without this behaviour we might have avoided a national and international catastrophe, which has gravely damaged the nations of the West, and reduced Iraq to a violent, sectarian slum.

He calls me " a badly-misguided. appeasing hack". Well, this is pretty milk-and-water stuff by the standards of most of my critics , but it is also without supporting evidence. Who misguided me, well or badly? I followed my own opinions, observation and conscience, and made my own study of history,. rather than joining the media flock of bleating aggressors. Once the war had started, I continued my opposition. Whom did I "appease"? Nobody that I know of . The word is hurled about by historically ignorant and politically gullible people who think that every conflict is like World War two, and every foreign despot on whom the USA happens to frown is Hitler. Iraq was not the Third Reich. Saddam Hussein was not Hitler, and made no territorial demands after his ejection from Kuwait ( a country he only invaded because he thought - after a bizarre conversation with the then US ambassador to Baghdad, April Glaspie - that he had US approval for his action) The principal example of appeasement in modern diplomacy is the pressure on Israel to accept the creation of a Palestinian State and to cede actual land for an unenforceable promise of 'peace'. I utterly oppose this and have always done so. President Bush and Mr Blair, in the intervals between their bellicose rants about wars on terror, actively promote this policy. As for being a hack, I am indeed proud to be one.

You fix a debate with me and Melanie, and I'll have one. I'm reasonably well-informed about Iraq and its history and have been there twice since the invasion, though I freely admit I'm too scared to go there now. The superb Patrick Cockburn, an immensely brave, well-informed and honest journalist who knows more about Iraq than most westerners living, still goes there even now despite the dreadful risks, is even more convinced that I am that the thing's a catastrophe. Read his excellent book on the subject before lecturing me about my alleged ignorance. What actually divides me from Melanie (for whom I have great admiration even when I disagree with her) is that Melanie is an idealist, and I'm not. As for my brother, I hope to debate him (on this subject and others) in Grand Rapids next Thursday, and I believe that it may be on You-Tube on C-Span. Once again, my brother is an idealist internationalist, and I'm not. The question is not soluble by facts - Iraq's a smoking ruin viewed from any distance, and the invasion an abject, tragic failure. The only questions remaining are of interest only to theoreticians since the US is now finished as an interventionist power ( and I'm actually sorry about that). they are: 'could it have succeeded if it had been better planned?' and 'if so, would that have been a good thing?', to which I suspect the answer is 'no' in both cases.

If "Roberto" wants to read my thoughts on Iran ,why doesn't he? He doesn't seem to have done so. It is misleading to say I was 'impressed', as it suggests some sort of sympathy with the Iranian government. That is plain misrepresentation, always the sign of a man with a weak argument. If we are in danger from Islamists, and I think this danger is overstated in one way (terrorism) and understated in another (the effect on Western societies of mass immigration by Muslims, generally encouraged by the same globalists who supported the Iraq war ) I really cannot see how the Iraq war has lessened that danger in any way. Can "Roberto" explain how it has done so?

The last few decades have seen a huge shift of power towards the secular state, which has upset the balance that should be between the secular and the moral. The results of this imbalance are the social decay that is visible for all to see.

The most important institution that is the glue of society, is traditional marriage, performed in church in the sight of God and man. This ceremony is not just inspiring but affects the way the couple sees their relationship - a continuation of the life affirming culture of the Christian faith in a community. A civil marriage in contrast, is vulgar and cheap.

Christianity as a faith or the Christian ethos, has been the foundation of Britain's greatness in science and engineering, as well as social and political development. This contribution to the world has no equal anywhere or any time. It is sad that we are not aware of it, and countries such as the USA, that are more aware of their debt to Britain's contributions.

We are now confronted in Britain with a militant faith, whose ethos and values are diametrically opposed to Christianity. Having abandoned Christianity, we are naked against this assault.

Mr Hitchens, do you have any idea what Easter is actually about? Because I can assure you it has nothing to do with a chap called Jesus and everything to do with the very ancient celebration of Spring and rebirth. Hence the eggs, the bunny, the name, the date.

Organised religion is a cancer on civilisation and long may it continue to slowly die. If you want to worship, do so, but the very large majority on this planet disagree with your right to impose that on anyone else (I know you have previously stated that you don't impose your religious views on others, but this is a huge contradiction , it forms the very basis of your outlook and everything you argue for. You really should just accept this).

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.